Breaking News Today's Echo - Who owns the Blues? (2010 thread)

[palexander]

Are you crazy??? Surely you can see the state our club is in and you think we should all just chill out and stop worrying about it???!!! I can only imagine you're one of the "floaters" - ie. a West Ham fan who comes to watch us when the Shammers are away. No true Shrimper could fail to be worried sick by what's happening to our football club.

Hang on, in his 'sporting heyday' wasnt Ron known as Ron "Rossi" Martin? Due to his long Francis Rossi like hairstyle?

Hmmm...

 

[GBJ]

Hang on, in his 'sporting heyday' wasnt Ron known as Ron "Rossi" Martin? Due to his long Francis Rossi like hairstyle?

Hmmm...

It actually wouldn't surprise me if it was him LOL.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

It actually wouldn't surprise me if it was him LOL.

Surely he's got more important stuff to be getting on with than lurking on SZ? :p

 

[Cricko]

Surely he's got more important stuff to be getting on with than lurking on SZ? :p

....;)

 

[Beefy]

Exactly, they are not running expenses. That is the salaries, the motor expenses, the print post and stationary, the depreciation, the accountancy the repairs and maintainance, the leasing, the hire charges, IT, etc.

I work in a business with a turnover of £90m over 10 times that of SUFC. Our sundry expenses are less than £5k stop putting your head in the sand, the club and OUR money has been wasted and stripped from where it should go to pay for RM's failure.

BTW a Bently costs almost £2.5k for a service. I bet we have paid for that too.

Where are you getting that these are 'sundry expenses'? Maybe we're speaking at cross-purposes in which case I apologise, but the figures that you are talking about are the Administrative Expenses and not Sundry Expenses.

The breakdown that I'm linking to below show that Sundry Expenses are less than a tenth of what you are claiming. These are 2007's figures but the 2008 accounts showed a broadly similar figure.

http://www.shrimperzone.com/vb/showthread.php?56581-Admin-Fees-Revealed

 

[Cricko]

They are 2006-2007 figures some 3/4 years ago.

 

[Beefy]

Just proves what I have been saying for years. The club's income is being siphoned off to RM other companies, then RM makes a big song and dance about putting it back.

It should of been impossible to lose money over the past 4 seasons with income from our fanbase and tiny squads of less than 20 players. How many times did we hear players turning us down due to the wages on offer? We were not paying any more and in some cases less than other League one clubs with income a lot less than us. We also had a squad a lot smaller than other League one clubs with less income.

This hasn't made sense for years and 99% of us have buried our heads in the sands saying that the money has gone on the stadium.

The club need to make a statement today, for christ's sake our player returns for pre-season training in less than 48 hours.

It doesn't prove that at all. It may mean that but as North Wales Shrimper points out it may mean that they took a loan out against the season ticket money in order to get it all in in one go. It wouldn't be good business practice but then this is Southend United that we are talking about.

 

[Beefy]

They are 2006-2007 figures some 3/4 years ago.

They are 2007's accounts. We have only published one set since then, with 2009's figures due to be filed at Companies House shortly. The 2008 figures weren't broke down but had there been a £1.5m increase in Sundry Expenses then that would be pretty apparent.

Ex-Trust Treasury Bloke is saying as fact that SUFC are paying £1.8m in Sundry Expenses. This isn't true.

 

[GBJ]

http://www.shrimperzone.com/vb/showthread.php?56581-Admin-Fees-Revealed

Now there's an interesting thread. How interesting that the people who thought those numbers/figures were normal/correct, are no longer on here backing Martin?

Also, we never did seem to find out what 'sundries' meant, and why we had spent £144k on them. That's roughly £400 PER DAY on sundries. Small insignificant things like sundries shouldn't cost £400 per day.

 

[fbm]

Now there's an interesting thread. How interesting that the people who thought those numbers/figures were normal/correct, are no longer on here backing Martin?

Also, we never did seem to find out what 'sundries' meant, and why we had spent £144k on them. That's roughly £400 PER DAY on sundries. Small insignificant things like sundries shouldn't cost £400 per day.

Depends how many staff there are. £4 a head for 100 staff isn't over the top.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Now there's an interesting thread. How interesting that the people who thought those numbers/figures were normal/correct, are no longer on here backing Martin?

Also, we never did seem to find out what 'sundries' meant, and why we had spent £144k on them. That's roughly £400 PER DAY on sundries. Small insignificant things like sundries shouldn't cost £400 per day.

Some people on here like fbm try to defend some of the figures mentioned.
Put it this way, do you think that £144k was really spent on sundries?, or do you think some of that was spent on sundries, and the rest of it went where Ron wanted it to go and it was put down as sundries?
I know what I think.

 

[Beefy]

The accounts were audited and signed off as legit. Why would he syphon off £144k in sundries when the accounts show that he and his companies put far more than that in that year in loans? Why not just put less in in loans?

 

[GBJ]

Depends how many staff there are. £4 a head for 100 staff isn't over the top.

lol. Always as excuse eh. Just what would they staff be getting £4 per day for? Lunch? Can you tell me why it nearly doubled in the space of a year? Was that staff aswell?

Some people on here like fbm try to defend some of the figures mentioned.
Put it this way, do you think that £144k was really spent on sundries?, or do you think some of that was spent on sundries, and the rest of it went where Ron wanted it to go and it was put down as sundries?
I know what I think.

No I don't think it was spent on sundries. I believe that to be total ********. I have an idea where it went though.

The accounts were audited and signed off as legit. Why would he syphon off £144k in sundries when the accounts show that he and his companies put far more than that in that year in loans? Why not just put less in in loans?

One of my favourite quotes seems quite apt here;

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist".

 

[fbm]

Some people on here like fbm try to defend some of the figures mentioned.
Put it this way, do you think that £144k was really spent on sundries?, or do you think some of that was spent on sundries, and the rest of it went where Ron wanted it to go and it was put down as sundries?
I know what I think.

Oh please...

I wasn't defending it. Simply saying that you can't say it's excessive until you know how many staff it's meant to cover! For a shop of 5 people it's excessive. For Tesco it isn't. OK?

You need more than just one figure to get the picture. For instance, the fact that Rons companies are £22m in debt (as mentioned in the Echo) is meaningless on it's own. Manchester United owe many, many millions. It's what's on the other side of the balance sheet that's important and before anyone leaps on this I'M NOT SAYING EVERYTHING IS ROSY, OK? You just need to take figures in context and in perspective to get the true picture. If RM's companies show a book debt of £22m then there must be assets of at least that as well or he will be trading insolvently.

 

[Beefy]

One of my favourite quotes seems quite apt here;

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist".

If you're clever enough, or have the right pals, you can do anything....

Right so essentially you're selectively choosing the bits of the Accounts that you want to believe and discounting the ones that you don't?

 

[GBJ]

Right so essentially you're selectively choosing the bits of the Accounts that you want to believe and discounting the ones that you don't?

You've lost me there

 

[canveyshrimper]

Oh please...

I wasn't defending it. Simply saying that you can't say it's excessive until you know how many staff it's meant to cover! For a shop of 5 people it's excessive. For Tesco it isn't. OK?

You need more than just one figure to get the picture. For instance, the fact that Rons companies are £22m in debt (as mentioned in the Echo) is meaningless on it's own. Manchester United owe many, many millions. It's what's on the other side of the balance sheet that's important and before anyone leaps on this I'M NOT SAYING EVERYTHING IS ROSY, OK? You just need to take figures in context and in perspective to get the true picture. If RM's companies show a book debt of £22m then there must be assets of at least that as well or he will be trading insolvently.

Pretty much agree with this post apart from one aspect, IIRC the main reason that HMRC sought to wind up SUFC was because the company was trading insolvently.

 

[Smiffy]

Oh please...

I wasn't defending it. Simply saying that you can't say it's excessive until you know how many staff it's meant to cover! For a shop of 5 people it's excessive. For Tesco it isn't. OK?

You need more than just one figure to get the picture. For instance, the fact that Rons companies are £22m in debt (as mentioned in the Echo) is meaningless on it's own. Manchester United owe many, many millions. It's what's on the other side of the balance sheet that's important and before anyone leaps on this I'M NOT SAYING EVERYTHING IS ROSY, OK? You just need to take figures in context and in perspective to get the true picture. If RM's companies show a book debt of £22m then there must be assets of at least that as well or he will be trading insolvently.

Which was the quote from HMRC several times?...

 

[Firestorm]

They are 2007's accounts. We have only published one set since then, with 2009's figures due to be filed at Companies House shortly. The 2008 figures weren't broke down but had there been a £1.5m increase in Sundry Expenses then that would be pretty apparent.

Ex-Trust Treasury Bloke is saying as fact that SUFC are paying £1.8m in Sundry Expenses. This isn't true.

2009 Accounts were lodged at companies house early may and were discussed on an earlier thread

The current year does not close until 31/7

As for the comments about those who thought the previous numbers were correct not defending them...the numbers have not changed, they have been explained many times before an I for one am not going to face further comments about repeating my self , boring accounts etc as I have from certain quarters over the passt month just because ipeople could not , or wou;d not read what has been previously posted .

There is no evidence to substantiate claims that RM has been taking any money from SUFC to prop up his other businesses, if he wanted money from SUFC surely he would just call in some of the Millions in debts which SUFC owe the parent undertaking, other than a small reduction in the debt to the parent Undertaking, as reported in the last accounts and discussed on that thread there is nothing to indicate that SUFC's indebtedness has reduced.

As for the accusations about backing RM, personally I don't give a toss about RM, its the fabrication of "facts" which ****es me off . unsubstantiated financial theories are bad enough when bandied about by economists by when they are toted as facts by some people who can't even spell fiscal impropriety let alone debate its finer points its just beyond contempt

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

2009 Accounts were lodged at companies house early may and were discussed on an earlier thread

The current year does not close until 31/7

As for the comments about those who thought the previous numbers were correct not defending them...the numbers have not changed, they have been explained many times before an I for one am not going to face further comments about repeating my self , boring accounts etc as I have from certain quarters over the passt month just because ipeople could not , or wou;d not read what has been previously posted .

There is no evidence to substantiate claims that RM has been taking any money from SUFC to prop up his other businesses, if he wanted money from SUFC surely he would just call in some of the Millions in debts which SUFC owe the parent undertaking, other than a small reduction in the debt to the parent Undertaking, as reported in the last accounts and discussed on that thread there is nothing to indicate that SUFC's indebtedness has reduced.

As for the accusations about backing RM, personally I don't give a toss about RM, its the fabrication of "facts" which ****es me off . unsubstantiated financial theories are bad enough when bandied about by economists by when they are toted as facts by some people who can't even spell fiscal impropriety let alone debate its finer points its just beyond contempt

Who are you saying can't spell fiskal impropietty?